Kim's Posts - Think Atheist2015-08-02T23:14:20ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLileshttp://api.ning.com:80/files/5blN52OgSfV3iz-Y-F-ocnuiqkx7nDqbe4J7Vvwe6emgLdun5cXr4d8B54z6mziOCNhE46Mo*HxWUUHJewkwFVVSbP2gMP1G/412525765.jpeg?xgip=0%3A147%3A374%3A374%3B%3B&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=0ng08nn9uzmu0&xn_auth=noTotally Braced to be Crucified for This....tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-05:1982180:BlogPost:12437992013-01-05T05:34:27.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKKQdJR7F_I?wmode=opaque" width="560"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>I personally agree with T-foot on this.</p>
<p>Misogyny is a real problem. In a world where rape is still used by militaries to demoralize a country's people, how could this be denied? In a world where girls are kidnapped and forced into prostitution in droves, how could this be denied? In a world where women's struggle for equal pay and reproductive…</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cKKQdJR7F_I?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0"></iframe>
</p>
<p></p>
<p>I personally agree with T-foot on this.</p>
<p>Misogyny is a real problem. In a world where rape is still used by militaries to demoralize a country's people, how could this be denied? In a world where girls are kidnapped and forced into prostitution in droves, how could this be denied? In a world where women's struggle for equal pay and reproductive rights are still an issue in first world countries, how could this be denied?</p>
<p>Do some posters online go too far with sexist comments and other stupidities? No doubt. Do some atheist men see women as objects, or what have you? Absolutely. Don't think I'm defending these types. I'm merely suggesting that perhaps we are looking at this and seeing this as the general behaviors when they are in fact the anomolies.</p>
<p>I've been on many atheist forums and chatrooms these past four years. I love it! I've never met such cool people in my life! Our own chatroom here on Think Atheist is awesome! Great company! There is a greater percentage of men than women in these forums, just as we see in society. I've discussed, debated, and shared alot with these guys. Does the topic of sex come up? Duh....we're adult humans. And sex is a fun topic for most of us! But I've never, EVER felt, in the hundreds of forum situations I've been in, that if I felt uncomfortable or uninterested in those types of discussions, I would be ostracized or criticized for saying so. I have found that 90% or greater of atheist men I've encountered online are courteous, gentlemanly, and intellectually engaging. Personally, I find it insulting that these wonderful men are being lumped together and branded sexist, walking penises that only want women atheists around for one thing. And if you can't see the irony in how they are being perceived, then I'm sorry for you.</p>
<p>There are REAL women's issues out there. Feminism is a REAL stance. But I can't even allow myself to consider myself a feminist, who fights for equality and human rights for women worldwide, when feminism is now beginning to mean "how DARE you think I'm attractive as well as intelligent" or "you asked me out on a date because you were interested in me? YOU PIG!". THIS is not feminism....this is stupidity. </p>
<p>Just my observation.</p>The C.E.R.T. Approach: My (Flexible) Parenting Philosophytag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-17:1982180:BlogPost:8572192011-09-17T14:45:03.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p> </p>
<div style="margin-left: 2em"><p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span class="font-size-5" style="color: #008000;">"The child supplies the power, but the parents have to do the steering." <i>Benjamin Spock (1903-1998)</i></span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span class="font-size-5" style="color: #008000;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Parenting is hard work. I have many concerns as a parent and as an atheist parent in the bible belt, USA. <i>What do I teach my child? What should…</i></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div style="margin-left: 2em"><p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span class="font-size-5" style="color: #008000;">"The child supplies the power, but the parents have to do the steering." <i>Benjamin Spock (1903-1998)</i></span></span></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span class="font-size-5" style="color: #008000;"> </span></span></p>
<p>Parenting is hard work. I have many concerns as a parent and as an atheist parent in the bible belt, USA. <i>What do I teach my child? What should I tell my child or not tell him? What can I do to protect my child from indoctrination? What should be my focus?</i></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><i> </i></span></p>
<p>So many questions. Not very many easy-to-spot answers.</p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>I was raised in a home that I most certainly would <i>not</i> want for my child. I had very few role models from whom to learn good parenting skills. So, I pretty much have to teach myself, gleaning from outside influences and evidence and using my own judgement to determine the best route for my child and myself.</p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>I've read from several sources that have influenced my own parenting philosophy. I highly recommend <span style="color: #008000;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0814410960/ref=nosim/?tag=parebeyobeli-20"><u><font color="#0000FF"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">Raising Freethinkers: A Practical Guide for Parenting Beyond Belief</span></font></u></a></span> <span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">by Dale McGowan, Molleen Matsumura, Amanda Metskas, and Jan Devor. I've also studied Diana Baumrind's research on</span> <span style="color: #008000;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucYIg1HNtmI"><u><font color="#0000FF"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">parenting styles</span></font></u></a></span> <span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">and the aspects of parenting. I've adopted Thomas W. Phelan's</span> <span style="color: #008000;"><a href="http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/123_Magic"><u><font color="#0000FF"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">1-2-3 Magic</span></font></u></a></span> <span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">discipline management program for my son. (I recommend this to any parent of young children; it works!) There are several other sources of insight that I have discovered, but these three stand out to me most and have been my main tools in my parenting experience thus far.</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></span></p>
<p></p>
<p>Parenting is a huge deal to me because I want to get it right....after all, I only have one chance to <i>not</i> screw up my son's childhood. So, based on what I have studied and experienced, what do I want to teach my son? What is truly important? Skepticism? Compassion? Manners? Being true to oneself? Stability? There are hundreds of things I could teach my son, and should; but what is the focus?</p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>To answer that best, I have to consider my ultimate goal as a parent: to prepare my son to be completely independent. At first, this was going to bed, brushing teeth, potty-training, and eating healthily. Later, it will be driving, practicing points of etiquette, helping him register to vote for the first time if he chooses, changing a flat tire, or balancing his first checkbook. Some of these things are easy: my son broke himself of the bottle when he was 10 months old, and later he may never need my help learning to budget his earnings. But many of these steps toward total independence are migraine-inducing dilemmas, as any parent will agree.</p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>But what of values? Is it fair to impose values on your child? If so, which ones? I have rolled this inside my head again and again, and I don't have an objective answer. All I can go by is my instinct, and that is often highly subjective. This is my philosophy....it is a flexible, evolving philosophy of values I deem most important to impart, rather than impose, on my child. These values are as follows:</p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p></p>
<div style="margin-left: 4em"><p><b><span class="font-size-4"><span style="color: #008000;">C</span>uriosity</span></b></p>
<b><br/>
</b><p><b><span class="font-size-4"><span style="color: #008000;">E</span>mpathy</span></b></p>
<b><br/>
</b><p><b><span class="font-size-4"><span style="color: #008000;">R</span>esponsibility</span></b></p>
<b><br/>
</b><p><b><span class="font-size-4"><span style="color: #008000;">T</span>act</span></b></p>
</div>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Curiosity is questioning. It encompasses wonder and skepticism. It embraces discovery and innovation. This is the heart of life....the pool of understanding, self-actualization, and experience springs from the fountain of curiosity.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Empathy is the golden rule. All religions have described some derivitive of the golden rule, and this tells me that the golden rule, instead of being from a deity, is a universal reflection of humanity at its finest. This is subjective, of course, but I cannot help except feel that this value is one of the most important for my son to learn.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Responsibility is purpose. Once a person feels responsibility, he has developed a purpose for himself. What is my responsibility, thus my purpose? Conversely, what is not my responsibility, thus not my purpose. "I feel responsible for my environment; this is a purpose that I accept for myself. Recycling improves my environment. Therefore, recycling is my responsibility." Also, "I cannot allow myself to be responsible for this person's mistakes. It is not my purpose to fix this person's life for them, though I did try. I will not be a doormat for this person any longer. Therefore, this person is [no longer] my responsibility."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tact is manners, etiquette, diplomacy, protocol and finesse. The benefits of tact are evident...those that interact with others bearing tact in mind tend to have an easier time in their personal lives and in business/academics. I feel that this is different from empathy; case in point, when having an argument with a loved one, one can express empathy without tact. "I feel sorry for you because you are cold" sounds empathetic, but it won't get you far. However, "I cannot help but feel compassion for you because I feel that you can't bring yourself to care about this" says the same thing, with a bit more of an approachable, less accusing mannerism. This is a mild point. However, as meaningless as "sir" and "ma'am" can seem oftentimes, any businessman will tell you that you'll get further if you use this etiquette. Empathy is understanding; tact is behavior.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have considered other values that I find equally important, but as I consider them I see that they fall into the same categories as these four values. Integrity is, for instance, a special blend of empathy, responsibility, and tact. Stability is a responsibility. Being true to yourself is responsibility to yourself, after employing curiosity as to who you feel you are and what you stand for. Love is empathy and responsibility. So on and so forth.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>A simple philosophy, yes. But, in each lesson I teach my son, I consider what I am teaching my son and why I think it's so important. And I am beginning to use these words (curiosity, empathy, responsibility, and tact) around my son. One day, I hope he will engage and interact with me about these values, and others, even if he disagrees with me.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is not a doctrine, or a dogmatic view I hold. Just a starting point...which I feel is better than truly just "winging it".</p>
<p></p>
</div>A Letter to Anti-Labeliststag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-09-09:1982180:BlogPost:8374112011-09-09T01:30:00.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p> </p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">Dear Homo Sapien who Does Not Like to be Labeled and Feels that Labels are Restrictive and Result in Stereotypes and Boxed-In Self-Images,</span></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN"> </span></span></p>
<p>I think your stance is faulty, for reasons that will become obvious in this post. <u>Short words or phrases that are descriptive of persons, groups, intellectual movements, so on and so forth</u>, have their benefits.…</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN">Dear Homo Sapien who Does Not Like to be Labeled and Feels that Labels are Restrictive and Result in Stereotypes and Boxed-In Self-Images,</span></p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></span></p>
<p>I think your stance is faulty, for reasons that will become obvious in this post. <u>Short words or phrases that are descriptive of persons, groups, intellectual movements, so on and so forth</u>, have their benefits. These benefits are apparent to most people, but they seem to elude you. As we could go on forever and ever again arguing these points, I will try to illustrate them here.</p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>This website is a community for <u>persons who lack the belief in a deity</u>, <u>who are unsure about the existence/nonexistence of a deity</u>, <u>who are open to different views/opinions about the existence/nonexistence of a deity</u>, and/or <u>who have a worldview that focuses on human values and concerns without regard to the existence/nonexistence of a deity</u>. The need for such a community is quite a shame; for many members of this community, this is their only escape from a world dominated by <u>persons who possess the belief in a particular deity, namely the deities as described in the Bible and the Koran, and who insist upon the literal interpretations of these books be an all-compassing aspect of everyone's lives as the books themselves prescribe</u>. We all can agree that the world should be a place <u>where our daily lives are free from such restraints and crazed expectations, and where beliefs are kept out of objective legislature, keeping everyone's laws free of bias</u>. But until the rest of the world sees this, we can all meet here and discuss these topics.</p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>However, these topics are not the only topics discussed. Science, art, and literature are also discussed, as are psychology and philosophy. Although I am partial to <u>the variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and rejects the importance of belief in god</u>, many people I've met hold a view that <u>reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally</u>------and I can see where they are coming from in many aspects, though I disagree about most.</p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>Topics are not limited on this website to those of study. Other topics include parenting, personal experience, and even sexual orientation. Today, I was told of an article about parents who are not telling their child what his/her sex is so that he/she will grow up without gender identification and can decide for himself/herself. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/parents-keep-child-gender-under-wraps-170824245.html"><u><font color="#0000FF"><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN">http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/parents-keep-child-gender-under-wraps-170824245.html</span></font></u></a><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN">. I've met many people of different sexual orientations: some are <u>attracted to the same sex</u>, some are <u>attracted to the opposite sex</u>, some are <u>attracted to both sexes</u>, some are <u>attracted to others without regard to sex or gender</u>. I myself am <u>attracted to both sexes, though I wouldn't want an emotional romantic relationship with someone of the same sex as me</u>.</span></p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Politics and economics are also huge topics for <u>people who lack the belief of deities</u> on this website. Many <u>people who lack the belief of deities</u> on this website advocate <u>an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively</u>, though many are supportive of <u>an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets</u>. While most <u>people who lack the belief of deities</u> seem to hold the <u>belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights</u>, I have met some that think <u>a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society, is the best system</u>.</p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p>There is a wide variety of different individuals on Think Atheist; knowing the labels they relate to or closest to helps others know, at a glance, who they generally are and where they generally stand. Very few people adhere to any set of views to the very definition provided by wikipedia; we all have our own opinions and we all deviate a bit from our stated label. To know how much, you have to value people enough to discover their nuances. But to proclaim that labels are bad and shouldn't exist is a faulty position; we are social creatures and tend to follow. This has been tested and shown to be true numerous times---for example, the famous Milgram study <u><font color="#0000FF"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment</a></font></u></p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.%C2%A0"></a></p>
<p><span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">Labels give people options. Without ever hearing the label "secular humanist", I would've never read of Epicurus, or read the Humanist Manifesto(s), which helped me mold and concrete my own views. Hearing about objectivism and considering what that entails exactly helped me question my own views. Knowing the difference between sexual orientations helps me understand others better. <span xml:lang="EN" lang="EN">Yes, stereotypes and forced self-images are horrible results of having labels. But the problem is not the label....the problem that needs to be addressed and corrected is the stereotype and/or forced self-image. I think that learning the history and function of specific labels helps us understand them more, and use them better. Unless, of course, you're against education as well....</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>The Problem of Eviltag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-29:1982180:BlogPost:4050582010-10-29T01:58:17.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to<br></br>Then He is not omnipotent.</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is able, but not willing<br></br>Then He is malevolent.</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is both able and willing<br></br>Then whence cometh evil?</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is neither able nor willing<br></br>Then why…</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to<br/>Then He is not omnipotent.</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is able, but not willing<br/>Then He is malevolent.</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is both able and willing<br/>Then whence cometh evil?</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"><em><font size="3"><strong>If He is neither able nor willing<br/>Then why call Him God?</strong></font></em></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">I have read and heard several definitions of "evil", ranging from "absence of God" and "anything that goes against my moral values". Most people, be they theist or atheist, use this word in a literal sense. Most people believe that evil is present in the world, and in some human beings if not all of them. While many people reserve the term "evil" for only the most sadistic of criminals, some refer to each and every one of us as possessing evil.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">What is "evil"?</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Is it a force, like gravity or inertia? One that we cannot overcome, for it is all around us. Unchangeable. I hope not, for if it is, we are lost. But I do not believe this to be so.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Is it a gene? That notion seems simply laughable.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Is it a metaphor? Like "luck", we attribute it to what we perceive as suitable for the term. "You are in luck!" A word that has little meaning to anyone except the one who uses it in a serious sense. But few people use the word "evil" in a joking manner.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Evil, just like the god who cannot and/or will not free the world of it, does not exist. Referring to something or someone as "evil" does not solve the problem. "He was a suicide bomber." "Aaah. He was evil. It all makes perfect sense now!" This is counterproductive at best. Instead of trying to narrow down the real issue and try to find a way to prevent it in the future, we throw the whole ordeal into a dusty box labelled "EVIL", which not even the strongest minds want to sort through.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Aside from the psychotic and mentally unstable, who are not "evil" for what they cannot help, who is left? I have yet to meet a sane, stable person who did harm to others just for the hell of it. Everyone has justification, acceptable or not, for their actions. There are two types of intentional actions: actions taken based on correct information, and actions taken based on incorrect/incomplete information. Our suicide bomber was told he was ridding evil. He was told that he was doing God's work. He believed this so much that he would end his own life for it. Actions taken based on incorrect/incomplete information.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">I am a survivor of long-term child abuse and domestic violence. There are memories I have that sometimes makes me wonder if evil is not indeed present. But then I think as objectively as possible about the mental disorders that these people very probably have, and their own childhood environments. The cycle of violence is not evil. It is something that we can overcome if we realize that we can. Therein lies the problem of evil.</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">Most people believe that evil is real. They hurt others and breed hate against others because of this incorrect information, perpetuating a cycle of violence and hatred that affects everyone. This concept is perhaps humanity's worst perception. It is this concept, that humans are evil or are capable of evil, that brings out the very nature we classify <em>as</em> evil. It's the ultimate irony. Worse than any religion if you took the doctrine of evil out of them...would it be too much to say that religions would almost be harmless without the doctrine of evil? In fact, would it be too much to say that religions would be long dead without the doctrine of evil?</font></p>
<p align="left"></p>
<p align="left"><font size="3">The problem of evil is that we think it is there.</font></p>My Favorite "Letters From the Earth" Excerptstag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-28:1982180:BlogPost:4039842010-10-28T02:05:57.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p>Samuel Clemens, more commonly known by his pen name Mark Twain, was indeed a freethinker of his time. I'm not quite sure if he was an atheist or not: wikipedia notes that he was a Freemason, but he was most certainly not a fan of organized religion----especially Christianity. "The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Few literary works have made me laugh out loud as much as Twain's "Letters From the Earth", which is a book…</p>
<p>Samuel Clemens, more commonly known by his pen name Mark Twain, was indeed a freethinker of his time. I'm not quite sure if he was an atheist or not: wikipedia notes that he was a Freemason, but he was most certainly not a fan of organized religion----especially Christianity. "The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Few literary works have made me laugh out loud as much as Twain's "Letters From the Earth", which is a book consisting of 11 letters written by archangel Satan to archangels Michael and Gabriel. In the letters, Satan discusses man, man's religion, Christianity, and bits of the bible. You can't deny any of Twain's logic, nor would you want to----it's so undeniable that it's insanely humorous. (Note: please remember the times in which Twain wrote. Twain was a liberal of his times, a proponent of civil rights for people of all races and women alike.)</p>
<p></p>
<p>My favorite excerpts:</p>
<p></p>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font size="3">From the Second Letter</font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. First of all, I recall to your attention the extraordinary fact with which I began. To wit, that the human being, like the immortals, naturally places sexual intercourse far and away above all other joys -- yet he has left it out of his heaven! The very thought of it excites him; opportunity sets him wild; in this state he will risk life, reputation, everything -- even his queer heaven itself -- to make good that opportunity and ride it to the overwhelming climax. From youth to middle age all men and all women prize copulation above all other pleasures combined, yet it is actually as I have said: it is not in their heaven; prayer takes its place.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>They prize it thus highly; yet, like all their so-called "boons," it is a poor thing. At its very best and longest the act is brief beyond imagination -- the imagination of an immortal, I mean. In the matter of repetition the man is limited -- oh, quite beyond immortal conception. We who continue the act and its supremest ecstasies unbroken and without withdrawal for centuries, will never be able to understand or adequately pity the awful poverty of these people in that rich gift which, possessed as we possess it, makes all other possessions trivial and not worth the trouble of invoicing.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>2. In man's heaven <strong>everybody sings</strong>! The man who did not sing on earth sings there; the man who could not sing on earth is able to do it there. The universal singing is not casual, not occasional, not relieved by intervals of quiet; it goes on, all day long, and every day, during a stretch of twelve hours. And everybody stays; whereas in the earth the place would be empty in two hours. The singing is of hymns alone. Nay, it is of one hymn alone. The words are always the same, in number they are only about a dozen, there is no rhyme, there is no poetry: "Hosannah, hosannah, hosannah, Lord God of Sabaoth, 'rah! 'rah! 'rah! siss! -- boom! ... a-a-ah!"</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>3. Meantime, every person is playing on a harp -- those millions and millions! -- whereas not more than twenty in the thousand of them could play an instrument in the earth, or ever wanted to.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Consider the deafening hurricane of sound -- millions and millions of voices screaming at once and millions and millions of harps gritting their teeth at the same time! I ask you: is it hideous, is it odious, is it horrible?</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Consider further: it is a <strong>praise</strong> service; a service of compliment, of flattery, of adulation! Do you ask who it is that is willing to endure this strange compliment, this insane compliment; and who not only endures it, but likes it, enjoys it, requires it, <strong>commands</strong> it? Hold your breath!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It is God! This race's god, I mean. He sits on his throne, attended by his four and twenty elders and some other dignitaries pertaining to his court, and looks out over his miles and miles of tempestuous worshipers, and smiles, and purrs, and nods his satisfaction northward, eastward, southward; as quaint and nave a spectacle as has yet been imagined in this universe, I take it.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It is easy to see that the inventor of the heavens did not originate the idea, but copied it from the show-ceremonies of some sorry little sovereign State up in the back settlements of the Orient somewhere.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>All sane white people hate noise; yet they have tranquilly accepted this kind of heaven -- without thinking, without reflection, without examination -- and they actually want to go to it! Profoundly devout old gray-headed men put in a large part of their time dreaming of the happy day when they will lay down the cares of this life and enter into the joys of that place. Yet you can see how unreal it is to them, and how little it takes a grip upon them as being fact, for they make no practical preparation for the great change: you never see one of them with a harp, you never hear one of them sing.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>As you have seen, that singular show is a service of praise: praise by hymn, praise by prostration. It takes the place of "church." Now then, in the earth these people cannot stand much church -- an hour and a quarter is the limit, and they draw the line at once a week. That is to say, Sunday. One day in seven; and even then they do not look forward to it with longing. And so -- consider what their heaven provides for them: "church" that lasts forever, and a Sabbath that has no end! They quickly weary of this brief hebdomadal Sabbath here, yet they long for that eternal one; they dream of it, they talk about it, they think they <strong>think</strong> they are going to enjoy it -- with all their simple hearts they think they think they are going to be happy in it!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It is because they do not think at all; they only think they think. Whereas they can't think; not two human beings in ten thousand have anything to think with. And as to imagination -- oh, well, look at their heaven! They accept it, they approve it, they admire it. That gives you their intellectual measure.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a name="RACETWO" id="RACETWO"></a></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>4. The inventor of their heaven empties into it all the nations of the earth, in one common jumble. All are on an equality absolute, no one of them ranking another; they have to be "brothers"; they have to mix together, pray together, harp together, Hosannah together -- whites, niggers, Jews, everybody -- there's no distinction. Here in the earth all nations hate each other, and every one of them hates the Jew. Yet every pious person adores that heaven and wants to get into it. He really does. And when he is in a holy rapture he thinks he thinks that if he were only there he would take all the populace to his heart, and hug, and hug, and hug!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>He is a marvel -- man is! I would I knew who invented him.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>5. Every man in the earth possesses some share of intellect, large or small; and be it large or be it small he takes pride in it. Also his heart swells at mention of the names of the majestic intellectual chiefs of his race, and he loves the tale of their splendid achievements. For he is of their blood, and in honoring themselves they have honored him. Lo, what the mind of man can do! he cries, and calls the roll of the illustrious of all ages; and points to the imperishable literatures they have given to the world, and the mechanical wonders they have invented, and the glories wherewith they have clothed science and the arts; and to them he uncovers as to kings, and gives to them the profoundest homage, and the sincerest, his exultant heart can furnish -- thus exalting intellect above all things else in the world, and enthroning it there under the arching skies in a supremacy unapproachable. And then he contrived a heaven that hasn't a rag of intellectuality in it anywhere!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Is it odd, is it curious, is it puzzling? It is exactly as I have said, incredible as it may sound. This sincere adorer of intellect and prodigal rewarder of its mighty services here in the earth has invented a religion and a heaven which pay no compliments to intellect, offer it no distinctions, fling it no largess: in fact, never even mention it.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>By this time you will have noticed that the human being's heaven has been thought out and constructed upon an absolute definite plan; and that this plan is, that it shall contain, in labored detail, each and every imaginable thing that is repulsive to a man, and not a single thing he likes!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Very well, the further we proceed the more will this curious fact be apparent.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Make a note of it: in man's heaven there are no exercises for the intellect, nothing for it to live upon. It would rot there in a year -- rot and stink. Rot and stink -- and at that stage become holy. A blessed thing: for only the holy can stand the joys of that bedlam.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font size="4">From the Sixth Letter</font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The human being is a machine. An automatic machine. It is composed of thousands of complex and delicate mechanisms, which perform their functions harmoniously and perfectly, in accordance with laws devised for their governance, and over which the man himself has no authority, no mastership, no control. For each one of these thousands of mechanisms the Creator has planned an enemy, whose office is to harass it, pester it, persecute it, damage it, afflict it with pains, and miseries, and ultimate destruction. Not one has been overlooked.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>From cradle to grave these enemies are always at work; they know no rest, night or day. They are an army: an organized army; a besieging army; an assaulting army; an army that is alert, watchful, eager, merciless; an army that never relents, never grants a truce.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>It moves by squad, by company, by battalion, by regiment, by brigade, by division, by army corps; upon occasion it masses its parts and moves upon mankind with its whole strength. It is the Creator's Grand Army, and he is the Commander-in-Chief. Along its battlefront its grisly banners wave their legends in the face of the sun: Disaster, Disease, and the rest.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Disease! That is the main force, the diligent force, the devastating force! It attacks the infant the moment it is born; it furnishes it one malady after another: croup, measles, mumps, bowel troubles, teething pains, scarlet fever, and other childhood specialties. It chases the child into youth and furnishes it some specialties for that time of life. It chases the youth into maturity, maturity into age, age into the grave.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>With these facts before you will you now try to guess man's chiefest pet name for this ferocious Commander-in-Chief? I will save you the trouble -- but you must not laugh. It is Our Father in Heaven!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font size="4">From the Tenth Letter</font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The first time the Deity came down to earth, he brought life and death; when he came the second time, he brought hell.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Life was not a valuable gift, but death was. Life was a fever-dream made up of joys embittered by sorrows, pleasure poisoned by pain, a dream that was a nightmare-confusion of spasmodic and fleeting delights, ecstasies, exultations, happinesses, interspersed with long-drawn miseries, griefs, perils, horrors, disappointments, defeats, humiliations, and despairs -- the heaviest curse devisable by divine ingenuity; but death was sweet, death was gentle, death was kind; death healed the bruised spirit and the broken heart, and gave them rest and forgetfulness; death was man's best friend; when man could endure life no longer, death came and set him free.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>In time, the Deity perceived that death was a mistake; a mistake, in that it was insufficient; insufficient, for the reason that while it was an admirable agent for the inflicting of misery upon the survivor, it allowed the dead person himself to escape from all further persecution in the blessed refuge of the grave. This was not satisfactory. A way must be conceived to pursue the dead beyond the tomb.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The Deity pondered this matter during four thousand years unsuccessfully, but as soon as he came down to earth and became a Christian his mind cleared and he knew what to do. He invented hell, and proclaimed it.</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Now here is a curious thing. It is believed by everybody that while he was in heaven he was stern, hard, resentful, jealous, and cruel; but that when he came down to earth and assumed the name Jesus Christ, he became the opposite of what he was before: that is to say, he became sweet, and gentle, merciful, forgiving, and all harshness disappeared from his nature and a deep and yearning love for his poor human children took its place. Whereas it was as Jesus Christ that he devised hell and proclaimed it!</em></font></p>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Which is to say, that as the meek and gentle Savior he was a thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament -- oh, incomparably more atrocious than ever he was when he was at the very worst in those old days!</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">It was extremely difficult to pick out my favorite excerpts, as the entire book is written in just this fashion. I hope any readers enjoyed these excerpts. Mark Twain has several other works such as these, one of my favorites being "The Lowest Animal".</p>The Christian God's Relative Moralitytag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-26:1982180:BlogPost:4022212010-10-26T16:11:01.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<p>Christians like to throw around a concept that I would like to reexamine today: absolute morality. These thoughts are my own, but this is probably something that has been addressed many times by more competent freethinkers than myself. At any rate....</p>
<p></p>
<p>Please, if you haven't already, take a gander at <a href="http://www.proofthatgodexists.org">www.proofthatgodexists.org</a>. The main topic of this little exercise is absolute morality. It's hard to get around the point that…</p>
<p>Christians like to throw around a concept that I would like to reexamine today: absolute morality. These thoughts are my own, but this is probably something that has been addressed many times by more competent freethinkers than myself. At any rate....</p>
<p></p>
<p>Please, if you haven't already, take a gander at <a href="http://www.proofthatgodexists.org">www.proofthatgodexists.org</a>. The main topic of this little exercise is absolute morality. It's hard to get around the point that "Molesting Children for fun is Absolutely Morally Wrong"; that act is indeed atrocious, and I would agree that it is absolutely morally wrong. The exercise then bunches "moral law" together with laws of science, mathematics, and logic and asks if these laws are universal or individual. Dumb, dumb, dumb. But, play along....okay, these laws are all universal; furthermore, they do not change. <strong>Eureka!</strong> This proves not only that there is most certainly a god, but that the Christian god is that god! (I'm not quite sure how that connection is made, but hey.)</p>
<p></p>
<p>That is the mindset, sadly, of many Christians. But if they took the time to read their holy book, they would quickly see how their god's "absolute moral law" is....not so absolute.</p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>Deuteronomy 22:28-29</strong>---If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p align="center">This is god's absolute moral law?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Christians will protest, "That law was to protect women of that time!" Again, I ask: <em>This is god's absolute moral law?</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>Exodus 21:20-21</strong>---When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he will be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two, he will not be punished as the slave is his own property.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p align="center">This is god's absolute moral law?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Christians will protest, "That was the Old Testament! It all changed when Jesus paid for our sins!!" Again, I ask: <em>This is god's absolute moral law?</em></p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>1 Corinthians 14:34-35</strong>---Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must remain in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in the church.</em></p>
<p></p>
<p align="center">This is god's absolute moral law?</p>
<p></p>
<p><em><strong>Luke 14:25-26</strong>---Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them, he said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."</em></p>
<p></p>
<p align="center">This is god's absolute moral law?</p>
<p></p>
<p>I am not interested in the excuses Christians bring to the conversation when confronted with scripture such as these (and there are a multitude more where these originate....from their holy book). All I see is that they claim that morality is absolute and that their god provided that absolute morality. But then he changed his absolute moral laws. To fit the times, of course. Why couldn't his absolute moral law include from the beginning that rape and slavery were absolutely wrong, that women were absolutely equal, and that hating your family and self was absolutely psychotic?</p>
<p></p>
<p>A final, only half-related thought: If god (of any flavor) was real and he/she/it/them did in fact have an absolute moral law, would that absolute moral law change in relation to god's wishes, desires, plan, etc....or would the absolute law never be changeable, even by god. For instance, if god decided that "molesting children for fun" was not absolutely morally wrong, would it no longer be absolutely morally wrong? If no---this would still be morally wrong, then god has no control over absolute morality....it exists with or without god. If yes---this would no longer be absolutely morally wrong, then there is no absolute morality as it CAN be changed by god (regardless if he would or not).</p>
<p></p>
<p>Any thoughts? (Hopefully some that are a bit more clear than my own....)</p>Why I Am a Secular Humanisttag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-22:1982180:BlogPost:3980632010-10-22T08:24:24.000ZKimhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KimberlyLiles
<span lang="" xml:lang=""><br></br>
</span><p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">I very distinctly remember discussing human nature with my grandmother when I was fourteen. After hearing Ray Stevens sing "Everything is Beautiful", my grandmother commented that while the song was inspirational, it was clearly misguided: the world is not "gonna find a way". I then expressed to her my belief that people were naturally good with the best intentions at heart and that maybe the world "finding a…</font></span></p>
<span lang="" xml:lang=""><br/>
</span><p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">I very distinctly remember discussing human nature with my grandmother when I was fourteen. After hearing Ray Stevens sing "Everything is Beautiful", my grandmother commented that while the song was inspirational, it was clearly misguided: the world is not "gonna find a way". I then expressed to her my belief that people were naturally good with the best intentions at heart and that maybe the world "finding a way" was not so unachievable if we tried.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">I had been a Christian for only a year or two at this point and discussed many concepts such as this with my grandmother, a very intelligent woman and also a fundamentalist Christian. I remember her disagreeing with me (calmy and sagely, as always) and reminding me of humans' sinful natures and the words of the unquestionable scripture: <em>there is none that doeth good; no, not one</em> and <em>there is none good but one, that is, God</em>. And, of course, of end-times and the rapture.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">This shut me down as the Bible was the word of God, and that was that. To both my grandmother and me...then. Naturally we continued our discussion, but only under the premise that the Bible was correct and that my gut feeling, though loving and compassionate, was simply <strong>wrong</strong>.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">But I couldn't entirely escape the belief that people are good. Sane people do not kill others for pleasure, but sane people <strong>do</strong> (for example) give change to homeless people knowing full well that they will receive nothing in return. Sane people do not kill their children willy-nilly, but sane people <strong>do</strong> love and protect their children everyday. Sane people do not go into professions with the intention to harm others, but sane people <strong>do</strong> go into professions to help others. How could bad people want to do so much good all throughout their lives?</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">So, at that time, I was compelled to accept two contradictory views: <em>people are bad</em>, and <em>people are good</em>. But I never questioned it. I never asked, or even thought to ask, "Both can't be true, so what is the evidence for both views?" I merely excused this contradiction by telling myself that people are good because God made us in His image, but people are bad because they cannot help but sin, being born <em>in</em> sin.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">Then, after I had stopped believing in god because of the evidence I had found and followed further, I started looking for beliefs that I <em>could</em> embrace. First, I embraced the beauty of the world (and universe) that my loved ones and I inhabit through the "eyes" of science....and I cannot express in mere words how beautiful I found (and still find) it to be.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">A couple of months after my deconversion, I happened upon a video by YouTuber Patrician Atheist titled, "Are You a Secular Humanist?"</font> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SUFYwx-Hhs"><font size="4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SUFYwx-Hhs</font></a> <font size="4">Extremely interested in this philosophy, I did some research...in fact, quite a bit of research. And quite a bit of personal reflection and thought regarding my findings. As I read the Humanist Manifesto III (</font><a href="http://www.redbankhumanists.org/PDF/HumanistManifesto_III.pdf"><font size="4">http://www.redbankhumanists.org/PDF/HumanistManifesto_III.pdf</font></a><font size="4">), I recalled that talk with my grandmother, and how I had felt then and in the decade that had followed.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">This philosophy felt <em>natural</em> to me. This worldview was one that I had held all along but could not fully adopt because of the religious indoctrination under which I had been held. This mindset didn't hold unnecessary contradictions with my own compassion and hope for my fellow humans and all of humanity or with what evidence and reality so clearly indicates.</font></span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span lang="" xml:lang=""><font size="4">With this philosophy, I can have my love for science, skepticism of unsubstantiated religious claims, my instinctive empathy toward humans, and my hope that perhaps....if we try...the world <em>will</em> find a way.</font></span></p>